Mohammad Shaker
← Back

Lambda SnapStart Rollout & Disable: Cold Start Optimization

·performance

Lambda SnapStart Rollout & Disable: Cold Start Optimization

Lambda cold starts caused 2-3 second delays for users hitting our APIs. We enabled AWS Lambda SnapStart to reduce cold starts from 3 seconds to 500ms, achieving an 83% reduction. After analyzing costs ($500-600/month for 1% of requests), we disabled SnapStart and focused on more cost-effective optimizations.

The Cold Start Problem

Lambda functions experience cold starts when AWS provisions new execution environments. During a cold start, the runtime must initialize the Python interpreter, load dependencies, and execute application initialization code. For our Flask-based API, this process took approximately 3 seconds.

Impact Assessment:

  • Cold start frequency: ~1% of total requests
  • Cold start duration: 3.0 seconds
  • Warm execution duration: 200ms
  • User experience: Occasional 3-second delays

While only 1% of requests experienced cold starts, these delays occurred unpredictably, degrading user experience during low-traffic periods or after deployments.

Before: Standard Lambda Cold Starts

Lambda Cold Start (Standard)
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Request arrives at API Gateway                   │
│                                                  │
│ ┌────────────────────────────────────────────┐  │
│ │ Lambda Initialization                      │  │
│ │ ├─ Provision execution environment (500ms)│  │
│ │ ├─ Initialize Python runtime      (1.5s) │  │
│ │ ├─ Load dependencies (Flask, etc) (800ms) │  │
│ │ ├─ Initialize application code    (500ms) │  │
│ │ └─ Execute request handler        (200ms) │  │
│ │                                            │  │
│ │ Total latency: ~3.5 seconds                │  │
│ └────────────────────────────────────────────┘  │
│                                                  │
│ Response returned to client                      │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Frequency: ~1% of requests (after idle periods)
User Impact: Unpredictable 3-second delays

After: Lambda SnapStart Enabled

Lambda Cold Start (SnapStart)
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Request arrives at API Gateway                   │
│                                                  │
│ ┌────────────────────────────────────────────┐  │
│ │ Lambda Initialization (Snapshot Restore)   │  │
│ │ ├─ Restore snapshot            (300ms)    │  │
│ │ ├─ Execute request handler     (200ms)    │  │
│ │                                            │  │
│ │ Total latency: ~500ms                      │  │
│ └────────────────────────────────────────────┘  │
│                                                  │
│ Response returned to client                      │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Frequency: ~1% of requests (after idle periods)
User Impact: 83% reduction in cold start time
Cost: $500-600/month additional charge

Implementation Details

Enabling SnapStart

Lambda SnapStart creates a snapshot of the initialized execution environment and restores it for new instances, bypassing the runtime and dependency loading phases.

Configuration changes:

# serverless.yml
functions:
  api:
    handler: src/lambda_handler.handler
    snapStart: true  # Enable SnapStart
    runtime: python3.11
    memorySize: 1024

Deployment steps:

  1. Updated serverless configuration with snapStart: true
  2. Deployed to staging environment for testing
  3. Monitored cold start metrics in CloudWatch
  4. Measured cost impact over 7-day period
  5. Rolled out to production

Observed Performance

Cold Start Duration:

  • Before SnapStart: 3,000ms average
  • After SnapStart: 500ms average
  • Improvement: 83% reduction (2,500ms saved)

CloudWatch Metrics:

Cold Start Frequency (7-day period):
- Total requests: 1,245,000
- Cold starts: 12,450 (1.0%)
- Warm executions: 1,232,550 (99.0%)

Duration savings:
- Per cold start: 2,500ms saved
- Total time saved: 31,125 seconds (8.6 hours)

Cost-Benefit Analysis

While SnapStart delivered impressive performance improvements, the cost analysis revealed a problematic ratio.

Monthly Cost Breakdown:

SnapStart Monthly Cost
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Base SnapStart fee:           $500               │
│ Snapshot storage:             $50                │
│ Additional invocations:       $50                │
│                                                  │
│ Total monthly cost:           $550               │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Impact Analysis:
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Requests affected: 1% (cold starts)              │
│ Time saved per request: 2.5 seconds              │
│ Monthly cold starts: ~50,000                     │
│ Total time saved: ~35 hours/month                │
│                                                  │
│ Cost per hour saved: $15.71                      │
│ Cost per affected request: $0.011                │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Decision Framework:

For SnapStart to be cost-effective, we evaluated:

  1. What percentage of users experience cold starts? ~1%
  2. What is the user impact of 2.5s delay? Minimal (app remains functional)
  3. Is $550/month justified for 1% user experience improvement? No
  4. Are there cheaper alternatives? Yes (function consolidation, caching)

The Decision: Disable SnapStart

After one week of production testing, we disabled SnapStart based on three factors:

1. Low Cold Start Frequency Cold starts affected only 1% of requests, primarily occurring:

  • After deployments (planned maintenance)
  • During low-traffic hours (3-5 AM UTC)
  • After scaling events (acceptable latency spike)

2. Minimal User Impact

  • 99% of requests executed in <200ms (warm)
  • Users experiencing cold starts could retry (automatic in mobile app)
  • No user complaints about occasional delays

3. Better Cost Optimization Opportunities The same $550/month could fund:

  • Additional RDS read replicas (reducing query latency for all users)
  • Redis caching layer (sub-50ms response times)
  • Lambda function consolidation (reducing overall cold start frequency)

Alternative Optimizations Implemented

Instead of SnapStart, we pursued cost-effective alternatives:

1. Thin Lambda Consolidation Consolidated 4 separate Lambda functions into 1, reducing cold start frequency by 75%.

  • Cost: $0 (architectural change)
  • Impact: 4× fewer cold starts

2. API Response Caching Implemented Redis caching for frequently accessed data.

  • Cost: $30/month (t3.micro ElastiCache)
  • Impact: 99% cache hit rate, <50ms response times

3. Database Query Optimization Added indexes and optimized slow queries.

  • Cost: $0 (one-time development)
  • Impact: 50× faster database queries

Combined Impact:

  • Total cost: $30/month (vs. $550 for SnapStart)
  • User experience: Better for 100% of requests (not just 1%)
  • ROI: 18× better cost efficiency

Lessons Learned

1. Measure User Impact, Not Just Metrics Cold start duration improved 83%, but only affected 1% of users. Raw performance metrics can be misleading without usage context.

2. Cost-Benefit Analysis is Crucial $550/month for SnapStart vs. $30/month for caching showed that cheaper solutions often provide better overall value.

3. Optimize for the Common Case Focus optimization efforts on the 99% of requests (warm executions) rather than the 1% edge case (cold starts).

4. Consider Cascading Effects Function consolidation reduced cold starts AND simplified deployment—a multiplier effect that single-purpose optimizations rarely achieve.

Results Summary

Final Performance Comparison
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                    Before    SnapStart   Final   │
│ Cold start time:   3.0s      0.5s        3.0s    │
│ Warm exec time:    200ms     200ms       150ms   │
│ Avg response time: 230ms     225ms       180ms   │
│ Monthly cost:      $2,200    $2,750      $1,730  │
│                                                  │
│ Decision: Disabled SnapStart, optimized elsewhere│
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Quantified Outcomes:

  • SnapStart enabled: 3s → 0.5s cold starts (83% improvement)
  • SnapStart cost: $550/month for 1% of requests
  • SnapStart disabled: Saved $550/month
  • Alternative optimizations: $30/month, improved 100% of requests
  • Net result: $520/month saved + better overall performance

Key Takeaways

  1. Performance optimization must include cost analysis. Faster isn't always better if it's prohibitively expensive.
  2. Optimize for the majority. Improving 99% of requests (warm) delivers more value than perfecting the 1% (cold).
  3. Compound optimizations win. Function consolidation + caching + query optimization delivered better results than any single fix.
  4. Measure what matters. Cold start metrics improved 83%, but user experience only marginally benefited.

SnapStart is a powerful tool for latency-critical applications where cold starts affect a significant percentage of requests. For our use case—1% cold start frequency with $550/month cost—disabling it and pursuing alternative optimizations was the right engineering decision.

Related Posts:

  • Thin Lambda Consolidation: Unified Function Architecture
  • API Response Caching Strategy: Reduce Database Load
  • RDS Query Optimization: Database Performance Analysis

Commits: b41f8a6, 6fa2370 Impact: $550/month saved, better resource allocation